Sunday, May 20, 2007

Right now, we're at the point where USADA's case is as strong as it is ever likely to look. Those rooting for USADA are now proclaiming the evidence is indisputable, corroborated, and that Landis is a punk, dirty doper.

USADA's theory as presented is that:

The lab work meets WADA accreditation standards;

Only a single metabolite > 3.0 is needed;

There are multiple occurances of 5aA > 4.0;

If the T/E reading of 11 is correct, it's outside the acceptable rage of the Landis longitudinal study back to 2002.

It is believed by the doping underground that microdoses of T improve recovery;

Microdoses of T often escape T/E screening detection.

Microdoses of T often have single 5aA deltas out of whack, with others OK.

Lemond claims Landis made an implied confession;

Lemond claims he was intimidated from testifying by Landis' manager.

What we know so far of the Landis theory is that:

The lab work is substandard in many ways.

There are issues with the chain of custody

There are issues with retention of data

There are issues with metabolite identification through inadequate monitoring of diagnostic ions in the mass spectrometry.

There are mysterious issues with manual and automatic peak identification and background subtraction.

The T/E value or 11 is not reliable, and all other values reported are within limits.

Landis denies the implied confession

The person who made the call did so without authority, and is now the ex-Manager.

We have not heard from Landis a comprehensive theory about why all the 5aA measures done by LNDD are incorrect, when done on either the manually selected peaks on the older isoprime unit, or with the automatic peak selection on the newer isoprime2.

We have not heard a theory explaining an analytically significant meaning to the gaps in the log files.

We have not heard a theory explaining the analytic impact of internal standards being outside the expected quantitative range in samples, especially when there appears to be no requirement they be quantified.

Landis' first witness on Monday, Wolfram Meier-Augenstein, is an expert on errors in IRMS procedures, and the second, John Amory, is an expert in testosterone metabolization who has in the past testified for USADA.

These are the sorts of witnesses you'd expect to need to put some damage into the claims the lab work is correct.

All is as it would be expected, very few trials go in a way where a 'directed verdict' is justifiable, the evidence and law so clear after the complaining party's case in chief, that a judge will declare the matter over before the defense is even presented.

I think that USADA has proven, that their lab work usually meets accreditation standards, their techs mostly do it close to right even if they have less grasp of why they do what they do than you might like to think about if it was your sample and your job on the line, that there was solid 'expert' opinion that the single metabolite holds up, nothing interfering in that peak that could bring it back below -3.8 or -3.0. I think the contamination issue has been a non-flyer so far, nothing to invoke the rule that the tests should not have gone further. Barring some evidence from Landis' case in chief that shows a single metabolite to not be caused by doping, its looking pretty good for USADA.

Other things that are a problem for LNDD and USADA in the future if they are not addressed, that the labs are supposed to have verification studies backing up their SOP's and LNDD doesn't seem to have that whereas most other labs do, and UCLA's verfication study for their SOP would not find the single metabolite to be a positive, though Catlin believes such a result is caused by doping, he can't prove it based on his research (ie, guessing that just often enough the single metabolite spike happens in a known clean sample though maybe not to -6). That LNDD is not documenting its packages the same way with the same details as many of the other labs, that the other labs generally have better chromatograms or better backup data that rules out coelutions and other interferences. To experts from outside the WADA family (Brenna on cross, Goldberger) what happens at LNDD wouldn't happen in their labs, qc would be tighter, cOc would be better, etc.

I found it ironic that Catlin was willing to back the LNDD affirmatives based on the review of packets that were less complete than provided by other labs (Montreal), lacked full chain of custody and operational notes (although he would only know that from the hearing testimnony), had been "verified" by a tech who only reviewed the written record and did not observe the testing (again from testimony) and was not willing to stake his lab's reputation on the WADA directed single metabolite affirmative test.

Bill - many, many thanks for your professionalism, perceptive commments and invovlement. And thank you for taking vacation to attend last week; you saw history being made - similar to the manufacture of sausage and legislation - and I hope that you are willing to write a summation of what is wrong with this system that can be used by folks to bring pressure for change.pcrosby

I don't see Mr. Hue as having unashamed bias. This looks like a man with a balanced open mind (when asked to give his opinion of if he thought Mr. Landis was guilty):

bill hue said... On the basis of Mongongu and Frelat's presentation, no way.

But on the many experts looking at those two 6's and the multiple 4's and 5's for exogenous testosterone, yes.

Unless Landis' experts explain those, despite my rejection of Mongongu and Frelat, I will have to conclude he did.

I still detest the sytem and believe it is not fair, though.

Sounds to me like someone who looks at the facts rather than makes childish and immature comments based on emotion rather than fact. I only hope that if you ever are in front of a judge, you get that kind of respect with the same level of open mindedness.

I find Mr. Hue's editorial insight to have been a great advantage while following this hearing and will miss his view this week. Thanks so much to everyone involved with this.

Total Poindexter Website Prize: to the fabulous geniuses over at trustbutverify, who not only are perhaps the most impassioned defenders of Floyd Landis' virtue beyond only the boy himself, but actually seem to understand the detailed scientific arguments they put out that the rest of us (well, me) are too stupid to even coherently summarize. Floyd, you better be innocent, or you owe these folks a *major* freakin' apology! (racejunkie)

"Who does awards for blogs? I sense a nomination is in order." (Carlton Reid, of BikeBiz)

"Hands-down champion of full-and I mean full-coverage of this hearing is the blog Trust But Verify. You'll have to have excellent background knowledge of the issues, and wade through page after page of detail to get to anything interesting, but it's raw and unfiltered and all there. The guy who runs the site, a cycling fan from Northern California, began casually providing a clearinghouse for Landis case news nearly 10 months ago, and now he has the haunted look of a man whose life has been hijacked and wants it back. (Loren Mooney, co-author of Positively False, at Bicycling)

"if you want the latest news on the Floyd Landis case, Trust but Verify is the go-to site. The author is biased in favor of Floyd (so am I) but the reporting is neutral and comprehensive." (12string musings)

About Me

About Us (Admissions)

TBV is personally biased towards Floyd. I think it'll be a better world if he proves his innocence, and some inquisitors meet their own just ends. Interspersed between daily link roundups are pieces of commentary slanted towards understanding what will prove innocence in the discipline proceeding, and what will rehabilitate his reputation in the public eye. Make of them what you will. Agreement with me is not required, though I am right.